The Days of Our Ridazz.

NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.

I bitch about them because they support turning urban areas into wilderness. The proposed Magic Mountain (not Six Flags) wilderness area in the San Gabriels has an asphalt road and former Nike site within it's borders. Fuck that. Enough is enough. Soon enough only hikers and equestrians will be able to enjoy our forests. This area so does not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act of 1964 that it's absurd.

Talk about elitism. User1's support of the Sierra Club is the only reason I hate the dude. hahahahahah

Greg, wtf? You hate the wilderness or something? I support keeping it wild. That's fighting to keep it for all the creatures that live there. Not for your fucking chainsaws and your red neck 4 wheel drive truck!

"an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

This hardly applies to a small mountain in the San Gabriels where you see nothing but the suburban sprawl of the Santa Clarita Valley, and that includes a Nike Site and an asphalt road, now does it?

I wholeheartedly support the Wilderness Act as it applies to areas that have been relatively untrammeled by man. But, WTF, should we designate the Sepulveda Basin as a Wilderness Area, or the Hollywood Hills? Just so we can keep the miners and 4-wheelers out? There has to be another solution.

So, yeah,

FUCK THE SIERRA CLUB, THEY'RE ELITIST ASSHOLES WHO SHOULD KEEP THEIR FOCUS ON THE SIERRAS.

You should have fought against development in the Santa Clarita valley and the building of Hwy 14. That would have done more to help the creatures than preventing a few 4 wheelers from a small mountain. It's a land grab for elitist assholes, simple as that.

NewsFlash, there isn't a square foot of land in the US that hasn't seen any presence of man. Give back to the creatures what we've been taking from them. Take up knife throwing or something instead of cutting down trees.

I just wrote Boxer, Feinstein, and my rep Brad Sherman to turn the Salton Sea into a wilderness area. Next year we're going to have to hike in from Palm Springs! And we won't be able to bring our bikes!

Not at all, that's what it sounds like User1 and PC are saying. Give the land back to the creatures by designating it as wilderness thereby excluding bicycles. As I said before there has to be a balance.

This shouldn't reflect on Sierra Club overall, but Sierra's So-cal chapters were among the major environmental opposition forces to the building of new transmission lines outside San Diego that genuinely are needed for big commercial wind and solar power plants. The only way to get a lot of affordable renewable energy is through big projects that require new transmission lines to access the best wind and best solar resources. Environmentalists don't like seeing transmission lines anywhere, and instead think we can do it all with solar PV on our houses here in LA. No way. Nothing is perfect and at some point you've got to stand for something.

"So, User1, you think we shouldn't be able to ride bikes anywhere but in the city?"

Fallacy of the false dilemma. Saying that we shouldn't be able to ride bikes in wilderness area X is not saying that we shouldn't be able to ride bikes anywhere but in the city.

User1 one wants to return the wild to the creatures, he wants to accomplish this by designating them wilderness, bicycles are not allowed in wilderness. Hardly a fallacy of the false dilemma.

"Where would you stop designating wilderness? Downtown LA?"

Certainly not...but if I did, it would be no more hilariously inappropriate than claiming with a straight face that Magic Mountain is an urban area.

It's urban to me, it has manmade infrastructure, is in view of the city, it might be wild to someone from the inner city but it's not even close to wild to me. I've ridden my bicycle there from the valley many times so I know what the area is like. Have you or User1 ever done so?

towliesbong, with all due respect...don't try to intimidate people, even if it's Allen, your long time friend. Your opinion doesn't jibe with all others on this forum....so If you have some points to make, please make them.

This isn't directed at you, Allan but, I wonder what the average income of an SC-member is?

Every time I see these guys on TV, or a magazine/newspaper article, the term "limousine liberal" comes to mind.

As far as keeping the wilderness wild, I think it should be limited to areas that would require gargantuan amounts of money and equipment to domesticate the area.

A good example would be if your proposed construction requires a high, percentage of implements just to remove natural obstructions.
In this case, your development permits would be rejected and all plans terminated until you could find a suitable spot elsewhere.

It's urban to me, it has manmade infrastructure, is in view of the city, it might be wild to someone from the inner city but it's not even close to wild to me.

Manmade infrastructure doesn't mean urban. In view of the city doesn't mean urban. Adjacent to the city doesn't mean urban. Are the suburbs urban? They meet all of those criteria.

If your belief is that areas near cities with manmade infrastructure, including long-dormant infrastructure, should be made available in perpetuity for conventional human land uses, be forthright about it and make your case. Trying to convince people that a friggin' mountaintop is an "urban area" in order to score points against people who want to ban some land uses there is a dead end.

I've ridden my bicycle there from the valley many times so I know what the area is like. Have you or User1 ever done so?

Can't speak for BGA, but I haven't. Is there some reason that this is relevant? Surely you weren't about to suggest anything so absurd as that a person who hasn't personally visited a place is not able to know basic information about that place. Because then I would really have to think that you were drinking that bongwater.

Listen, I'm all about cycling and UrbEx and earth art and having weird fun in unusual places, but if there's a truly compelling reason for a potential playground to be made off-limits to me, I'm all about being a fucking grownup and sucking it up. Of course, if you think that the reasons for making this particular playground off-limits are less than compelling...well, like I said, make your case.